Anybody agree with this reasoning?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from pschuller. Show pschuller's posts

    Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    The best closer in history blows 3 or 4 games a year. Since he is not on the market, the best closer you could buy now is going to blow 5 or 6 (and possibly more!). A serviceable guy like Acheves is going to blow no more than 8 or 9 (maybe serendipitously even fewer), so going out and paying lots of money for a guy of P-bon's quality gets you maybe 3-4 games. (From this, you can easily gather I am glad they did not resign him for what Philly paid.) Instead, you take that money and get two decent middle relief guys (I know, I know, it's not that easy to find those guys either!) to sub for Bard and Acheves (making Bard a starter and throwing out the "set-up" man concept in favor of using whoever is available and in a good pitching groove any particular game). Granted this stategy could be obviated by the lack of good middle relievers available on the market, but what do you all think? 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    Boston will eventually find a couple relievers via free agency market or trade.  But the biggest problem for these available free agents is that their asking price are still way too high.  Boston just probably would like to wait a while and hope their asking price will reduce.  Also Boston is still trying to find a team to make a trade for a set up man or a closer.  But the problem again is these teams especially these small market teams are asking too much in return.  

    Look at few teams that are very desperate for starting pitchings or bullpen helps such as the Yankees, Rays, etc, and they are not doing much either.  Yankees probaby need two more starting pitchers, Rays need alot of bullpen helps, etc.

    But to be honest with you, I prefer Bard/Aceves to remain in the bullpen, and Boston just go out there and find couple good two starting pitchers.  Then the pitching problem solved.  

    But if Boston happen to grab couple relievers, and decide not to get any starting pitchers due both Aceves/Bard rather to become a starting pitcher.  Then what if Bard/Aceves struggles in the spring training as a starter, and these coaches will tell them that they will not be pick as a starting pitcher.  Meaning they will be head back to bullpen, and then Boston will eventually ends up having lack of starting pitchings!!

    That is going to be my biggest concern!!

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc44. Show MadMc44's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    pschuller--I agree and I throw out three names that I think can be had in trade.
    If they don't work as a closer they would make excellent set-up or middle relievers.

    Brandon League from the Mariners, Walden from the Angels or Bailey from the A's. My choice for closer, inc. those three and Bard is Aceves--the guy has ice water running through his veins; he loves to end things--he''s the guy--in fact send Bobby V to talk with him and let him find out for himself. You can then close the book on a closer.

    Name Bard a starter--get League as a set-up find the rest through Non Tendered players or in trade.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from attic-dan. Show attic-dan's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

      It is both a good and bad thing that the Sox need bull-pen help. There is no position in baseball where year to year performance flucuates madly, especially front end pitchers. So Sox could catch magic in a bottle, or go down in flames with expected pitching pick-ups. The same holds true to a lesser extent pitchers holding down the 4th and 5th spots in rotation.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pschuller. Show pschuller's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    In Response to Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?:
    [QUOTE]pschuller--I agree and I throw out three names that I think can be had in trade. If they don't work as a closer they would make excellent set-up or middle relievers. Brandon League from the Mariners, Walden from the Angels or Bailey from the A's. My choice for closer, inc. those three and Bard is Aceves--the guy has ice water running through his veins; he loves to end things--he''s the guy--in fact send Bobby V to talk with him and let him find out for himself. You can then close the book on a closer. Name Bard a starter--get League as a set-up find the rest through Non Tendered players or in trade.
    Posted by MadMc44[/QUOTE]

    Agree that I think Aceves (and I do apologize for mispelling his name in the original post) seems to have the right mentality for a closer and hope that he at least gets a chance to prove it. Granted his stuff is not by any stretch lights out, but as I say, I like his head (and a lot more than Paps'). As far as set-up man is concerned, I am no doubt in the minority on this one, but I just don't like the lock step approach of Mr. X for the 7th, Mr. Y for the 8th, and Mr. Z for the 9th. When one or more of those "specialists" are not available any given night, other guys are called into "roles" they are not used to, with very indifferent results. And as Bard and Paps proved last year, there is no guarantee that the set up man/closer gets the job done every night either!!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    When it comes to pitching , I agree with the old time reasoning.

    You pay a guy to be a PITCHER.

    If he is good , you start games with him, if he's not so good he goes to the bullpen.

    If the starting pitcher is pitching well, HE STAYS IN THE GAME.

    If he is fatigued, injured or loses control...replace him with someone else!

    They are paying these guys too well, they think it's a country club!

    Make them earn their money by pitching 9 innings.

    It worked for Drysdale, Gibson, Schilling, Palmer, Seaver, Koosman, Martinez, Gullett, Jenkins , Marichal....hell, it worked for over 80 years!!!...how can it be wrong?...because the game is no longer for athletes and men who play for love of the game,it is for spoiled rich kids , who want to get richer.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from attic-dan. Show attic-dan's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    In Response to Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?:
    [QUOTE]When it comes to pitching , I agree with the old time reasoning. You pay a guy to be a PITCHER. If he is good , you start games with him, if he's not so good he goes to the bullpen. If the satrting pitcher is pitching well, HE STAYS IN THE GAME. If he is fatigued, injured or loses control...replace him with someone else! They are paying these guys too well, they think it's a country club! Make them earn their money by pitching 9 innings. It worked for Drysdale, Gibson, Schilling, Palmer, Seaver, Koosman, Martinez, Gullett, Jenkins , Marichal....hell, it worked for over 80 years!!!...how can it be wrong?...because the game is no longer for athletes and men who play for love of the game,it is for spoiled rich kids , who want to get richer.
    Posted by ZILLAGOD[/QUOTE]
       Pitchers going 8 and 9 innings is a time that has long since past. I agree today's hurlers seem to be babied in comparison, and still break down more frequently. There was a time when a team only carried 8 pitchers for a season, now teams carry that many just in the bull-pen and teams such as the Sox continually shuttle pitchers between Pawtucket and Boston essentially giving them a couple more options.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    In Response to Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning? :    Pitchers going 8 and 9 innings is a time that has long since past. I agree today's hurlers seem to be babied in comparison, and still break down more frequently. There was a time when a team only carried 8 pitchers for a season, now teams carry that many just in the bull-pen and teams such as the Sox continually shuttle pitchers between Pawtucket and Boston essentially giving them a couple more options.
    Posted by attic-dan[/QUOTE]

    Just because there is a concept which is out of fashion, does not mean it didn't work, couldn't work or never will work again.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    Ask Halladay if throwing deep consistently isn't important to him or his team.

       A few deep game throwers could easily help the bull pen.

    I know the times are different, but we are all still agog with that guy in Detroit, those two in Philly, a coulpe on the west coast that can chuck the cherry eep into the game. 

      
    ...

       As for the OP ... don't find much to say why not try.

       As for Paps in Philly ... if he thought Boston fans were tough, he's about to find out what real nasty home fans can be like.

       He maybe should have spoken to Brad Lidge first ... but all that dough will surely help him feel better.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    Good deep Starting rotation makes even the worst pens look decent.  
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from beavis. Show beavis's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    Boras is holding Ryan Madson hostage and will set him free for 4/44m.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    In Response to Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?:
    [QUOTE]Good deep Starting rotation makes even the worst pens look decent.  
    Posted by hankwilliams[/QUOTE]

    Not in the playoff time!!!  Good starting pitchings for the regular season tended to pitch shorter in the playoff due to wear and tear on them, and then the bullpen couldnt save them.  Look at Rays/Rangers/Phillies etc who all failed to win it all!!



     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from attic-dan. Show attic-dan's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    In Response to Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning? : Just because there is a concept which is out of fashion, does not mean it didn't work, couldn't work or never will work again.
    Posted by ZILLAGOD[/QUOTE]

       I agree, but it would take an organizatioal shift, pitchers would have to be stretched out starting in low minors. I don't see any one that bold in baseball, if anything it's going more and more the other way with teams now carrying 12 and 13 pitchers on major league roster. I shake my head when a pitcher is considered a work horse if he makes 30 starts, or pitches 200 innings.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    Not in the playoff time!!!

    False. Cardinals had a make shift pen that simply pitched well during stretch run. Paying big money for quality pen arms is a lower vaue than quality starters. Most baseball games, including playoffs, are won in the first 5 innings. The game is about percentages, as if not, just spending money would guarantee results. Red Sox all-time biggest season collapse resulted from starters losing games in the first few innings.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from beavis. Show beavis's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    Justin Verlander has  11 complete games in last 3 years. Thats seven games middle, set up, lefty specialist and closers were not needed. Of course it helps when starters go as long as possible...
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    If I had a rotation with pitchers who thought like Verlander and Halladay, i wouldn't be too worried about having a terrific bullpen. Detroit Tigers used to ride with Denny McLain and Mickey Lolich, the old Baltimore Orioles had McNally, Cueller and Palmer. Those teams dominated for years.

    You get yourself two or three guys willing to earn their money by pitching beyond the 7th inning more often than not....and you will have success. This works in this era same as in the older days. Pedro, Schilling and Lowe went deep into games in 2004. Cone, El Duque, Wells and Pettitte were the real reason the Yanks were so good in the 90's ...not the offense.

    Get some bulldogs who want to pitch, dump the guys who are satisfied with pitching their 6 innings and leaving the game in the hands of the bullpen. It's once every 5 days!!!!...they aren't exactly killing these guys!!!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    In Response to Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?:
    [QUOTE]If I had a rotation with pitchers who thought like Verlander and Halladay, i wouldn't be too worried about having a terrific bullpen. Detroit Tigers used to ride with Denny McLain and Mickey Lolich, the old Baltimore Orioles had McNally, Cueller and Palmer. Those teams dominated for years. You get yourself two or three guys willing to earn their money by pitching beyond the 7th inning more often than not....and you will have success. This works in this era same as in the older days. Pedro, Schilling and Lowe went deep into games in 2004. Cone, El Duque, Wells and Pettitte were the real reason the Yanks were so good in the 90's ...not the offense. Get some bulldogs who want to pitch, dump the guys who are satisfied with pitching their 6 innings and leaving the game in the hands of the bullpen. It's once every 5 days!!!!...they aren't exactly killing these guys!!!
    Posted by ZILLAGOD[/QUOTE]

    Zilla - are you saying some of the recent Sox SPs have been satisfied to be pulled after 5/6 innings?  If so, I have to disagree....in fact, they all have seemed to me to be very unhappy to be pulled at any point....to the point where I think they were disrespectful to Terry in some cases.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliams. Show hankwilliams's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    All an act. Beckett, Lester and Lackey couldn't wait to get in the country clubhouse and drink beer and play video games.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from beavis. Show beavis's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    Score one for Zillagod
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    I believe with the exception of the playoffs, a closer is one of the most overrated positions in baseball.  To me, bullpen depth overall would bring better results than focusing on getting that one go to guy.  Over a 162 game season, the sox will be better off getting multiple bullpen arms who can be reliable 6th 7th guys and be better off than signing a Madson.

    If they are in 1st place for the east or in the hunt by July 31st, then I'd be in the market for a dominant closer (granted one doesn't emerge from the Sox ranks)
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from fizsh. Show fizsh's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    Zilla, remember the game has changed dramatically since the days of the 300 IP starter.  The mound is lower.  One of the reason guys were going deep into games back then was because the scores were lower.  They got to face a pitcher, and middle infielders back then were generally defense first types.  Baseballs are tossed out the moment they hit the dirt now.  I think that is something that a lot of people don't realize.  Guys could make a pitch move more by using a scuffed up ball.  And the modern day guys you mention who go deep into games, Verlander, Halladay, Pedro, Schilling (I would add King Felix) are Hall of Fame caliber pitchers.  To say that guys who are the best are able to do it, so therefore all pitchers should be able to do it is a fallacious argument in my opinion.  

    Look at the numbers.  Most pitchers are worse during innings 7-9 than 1-3.  They get progessively worse during the game.  It is not just that they are babying players, or that the players don't want to go deep, but it makes the most strategic sense to get a fresher body in the game.  Also, you look at guys that go from reliever to stater, they generally lose MPH on their fastball because they can't go full bore for that long.  I am interested to see how Bard does as a starter.  I don't agree with the move, but as always, I trust the Sox have more information than I do.  

    One other thing, Derek Lowe only pitched 183 innings in 2004 in 33 starts.  That is less than 6 innings a start.  Wakefield tossed more innings in less starts then Lowe.  And the Tigers rode Denny McLain until he was 25, then he wasn't the same pitcher after back-to-back 41 start seasons.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    Seems for a team that is high on breeding 5 inning starters is now eating its bullpen. Not a good sign.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Anybody agree with this reasoning?

    fizsh I would rather have a pitcher who was great for 5 years then one who was servicable for 10.

    With all the extra treatments and strength training avaialble pitchers should be pitching more not less than pre 1990's.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share