COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

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

    COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

    Living in Denver, I had an opportunity to watch Cook pitching for the Rockies, and I thought he was terrific until problems physically.  Cook has an assortment of pitches that starters should have, and more often than not induced hitters to hit ground balls.  Cook also has that "starter frame of mind" when on the mound.  Cook pitched well in spring training, well enough to pitch effectively for 5 innings as he did in spring training. Cook is a starter now, and is needed now so that Bard can become the closer that the Sox need now, not later.  While Bard may not be a Paps, he sure is a lot closer to being a Paps than anyone else the Sox currently have.  As we all know, making Bard the closer also puts Aceves back in a role that he is most effective as a reliever and spot starter.  Cook is a major league starter and does not belong in AAA.    
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

      Dad & Bill-806 concurs with this thread !!!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

    I agree.

    I'd even rather have:
    Cook as #5.
    Bard as set-up.
    Aceves as closer.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

    Cook is a good guy to have in the bullpen for the must-have ground ball situation, but you know what he will give you as a starter, and it's nothing close to what Bard can potentially bring.  Bard's in the rotation now - give him a chance to prove he belongs there before throwing him back into the pen.  
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

    In Response to Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP:
    Cook is a good guy to have in the bullpen for the must-have ground ball situation, but you know what he will give you as a starter, and it's nothing close to what Bard can potentially bring.  Bard's in the rotation now - give him a chance to prove he belongs there before throwing him back into the pen.  
    Posted by slomag

    We know what Cook will give us as a starter.
    We know what Bard will give us as a set-up man.

    I don't see how messing with 2 knowns for the hope of one possibly nice unknown is logical.


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

    In Response to COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP:
    Living in Denver, I had an opportunity to watch Cook pitching for the Rockies, and I thought he was terrific until problems physically.  Cook has an assortment of pitches that starters should have, and more often than not induced hitters to hit ground balls.  Cook also has that "starter frame of mind" when on the mound.  Cook pitched well in spring training, well enough to pitch effectively for 5 innings as he did in spring training. Cook is a starter now, and is needed now so that Bard can become the closer that the Sox need now, not later.  While Bard may not be a Paps, he sure is a lot closer to being a Paps than anyone else the Sox currently have.  As we all know, making Bard the closer also puts Aceves back in a role that he is most effective as a reliever and spot starter.  Cook is a major league starter and does not belong in AAA.    
    Posted by lucbom


    If Cook is healthy he probably makes more sense than Bard who is an established set up guy.  I'm not even sure Bard should close over Aceves but I do know they both make our pen better than we presently have without Bailey.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

    In Response to Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP:
    In Response to Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP : We know what Cook will give us as a starter. We know what Bard will give us as a set-up man. I don't see how messing with 2 knowns for the hope of one possibly nice unknown is logical.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Because what Cook will give you as a starter is 5-6 runs a game.  Bard could easily be around 3.  He's prepared for the role - if we're ever going to find out if he's a stud starter, now is the time.  I'll bet Jon Lester would be a great setup man, too.  Should we move him to the pen?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

    In Response to COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP:
    Living in Denver, I had an opportunity to watch Cook pitching for the Rockies, and I thought he was terrific until problems physically.  Cook has an assortment of pitches that starters should have, and more often than not induced hitters to hit ground balls.  Cook also has that "starter frame of mind" when on the mound.  Cook pitched well in spring training, well enough to pitch effectively for 5 innings as he did in spring training. Cook is a starter now, and is needed now so that Bard can become the closer that the Sox need now, not later.  While Bard may not be a Paps, he sure is a lot closer to being a Paps than anyone else the Sox currently have.  As we all know, making Bard the closer also puts Aceves back in a role that he is most effective as a reliever and spot starter.  Cook is a major league starter and does not belong in AAA.    
    Posted by lucbom


    Cook may eventually get a shot to pitch in the rotation and they may or may not be a better team under this scenario, but Bard isn't going back to the bullpen anytime soon unless he really struggles as a starter and the bullpen implodes... 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

    In Response to Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP:
    In Response to COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP : Cook may eventually get a shot to pitch in the rotation and they may or may not be a better team under this scenario, but Bard isn't going back to the bullpen anytime soon unless he really struggles as a starter and the bullpen implodes... 
    Posted by jasko2248


    I agree, it wouldn't be right not to give Bard his shot at this point.  I think we may see quite a few different rotations this season. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

    The business of moving Bard to the rotation struck me as being very odd at the time.  Bard was the heir apparent to Papelbon's job - as long as Paps was here.  Now that Paps isn't here Bard is being moved to the rotation. (??)  What kind of sense does THAT make??

    Since we're all playing guessing games with what Bard will do I'll play mine. 
    Let's assume that a #4 pitcher on the Sox will go .500 on the season, BUT since this is Bard we're expecting more of him so for the sake of argument let's give him 15 wins.  15-11 is a good number, two wins better than .500 over 26 decisions (although it assumes having a good closer on the team).
    Papelbon averaged 38 saves a year out of the pen for the Sox, but since Bard isn't Pap let's give Bard a respectable 30 saves. 
    So now the question becomes, are those four wins over .500 offset by the difference between what Bard would do as the closer as compared to what his replacement would do?

    I just don't see this move at all, especially now when they don't have a real closer.  Having a good closer makes every SP'ers record better.  I can see this move taking two wins away from every starter over the entire season and that's not going to be offset by the four wins Bard gets over his (11-11, .500) replacement as a starter.  

    Aceves = setup man, available for longer duty when necessary.
    Bard = closer

    JMO!

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

    Why are they paying so much for a GM and a manager when all they have to do is check in here?

    Somebody here always seems to have the answer.

    Funny how these baseball people never know what the hell they are doing.




    "I don't manage baseball teams often...because I don't know jack about baseball. But , I know a good beer, even though I don't drink beer often."

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

    J.In response to "Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP":
    The business of moving Bard to the rotation struck me as being very odd at the time.  Bard was the heir apparent to Papelbon's job - as long as Paps was here.  Now that Paps isn't here Bard is being moved to the rotation. (??)  What kind of sense does THAT make?? Since we're all playing guessing games with what Bard will do I'll play mine.  Let's assume that a #4 pitcher on the Sox will go .500 on the season, BUT since this is Bard we're expecting more of him so for the sake of argument let's give him 15 wins.  15-11 is a good number, two wins better than .500 over 26 decisions (although it assumes having a good closer on the team). Papelbon averaged 38 saves a year out of the pen for the Sox, but since Bard isn't Pap let's give Bard a respectable 33 saves.  So now the question becomes, are those four wins over .500 offset by the difference between what Bard would do as the closer as compared to what his replacement would do? I just don't see this move at all, especially now when they don't have a real closer.  Having a good closer makes every SP'ers record better.  I can see this move taking two wins away from every starter over the entire season and that's not going to be offset by the four wins Bard gets over his (11-11, .500) replacement as a starter.   Aceves = setup man, available for longer duty when necessary. Bard = closer JMO!   Posted by S5
    The reason that Bard was given an opportunity to start was because that's what he wanted to do. It wasn't some crazy idea thought up by the front office. You're also assuming that Bard would automatically be a successful closer when some question whether or not he has the makeup for that role. Is it really that crazy to try and regularly get 200 innings out of a guy with his stuff, as opposed to 60?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

    In Response to Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP:
    Why are they paying so much for a GM and a manager when all they have to do is check in here?  Posted by ZILLAGOD


    Because it's easier to second-guess than it is to make decisions.  Laughing
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

    In Response to Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP:
    J.In response to "Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP": The reason that Bard was given an opportunity to start was because that's what he wanted to do. It wasn't some crazy idea thought up by the front office.
    That just doesn't seem to me to be a good way to make business decisions.  He wants to so he can? 
    You're also assuming that Bard would automatically be a successful closer when some question whether or not he has the makeup for that role. Is it really that crazy to try and regularly get 200 innings out of a guy with his stuff, as opposed to 60?
    Posted by jasko2248


    I've had some reservations about him being the closer too, what with his sometimes "deer-in-the-headlights' performances. That's why I supported his move to the rotation - as long as we had a closer.  Now that we don't have that closer I'd give him a chance to prove he can't close rather than give him a chance to prove he can be effective in the rotation.  Even if he gets the job done as a starter we're still left without a closer - and he MIGHT still be the best closer on the team.
    And what if he can't be effective in the rotation?  Does he get moved back to the pen - the place they apparently already have reservations about his being in?

    Look, I hope I'm wrong here.  I hope Aceves saves 38 just like Pap did and I hope Bard goes 18-12 as a starter.  I just haven't seen anything yet that makes me think either of those things is going to happen.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from jasko2248. Show jasko2248's posts

    Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

    In Response to Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP:
    In Response to Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP : I've had some reservations about him being the closer too, what with his sometimes "deer-in-the-headlights' performances. That's why I supported his move to the rotation - as long as we had a closer.  Now that we don't have that closer I'd give him a chance to prove he can't close rather than give him a chance to prove he can be effective in the rotation.  Even if he gets the job done as a starter we're still left without a closer - and he MIGHT still be the best closer on the team. And what if he can't be effective in the rotation?  Does he get moved back to the pen - the place they apparently already have reservations about his being in? Look, I hope I'm wrong here.  I hope Aceves saves 38 just like Pap did and I hope Bard goes 18-12 as a starter.  I just haven't seen anything yet that makes me think either of those things is going to happen.
    Posted by S5


    No one has ever said "he can," they just felt he deserved an "opportunity" to show whether he can or not.  I don't think the Sox management has any "reservations" about him being in the bullpen at all, in fact they may prefer it, but it came down to "How can we make this team better?" They didn't like the starters available on the market, so they decided to build up the bullpen and look for options for the rotation within the organization. 

    With Beckett, Lester, Buchholz and Lackey all making big money over the next few years, they are not going to invest big dollars into another starter any time soon.  They don't have any young starters knocking on the door, either, so why not give a guy with terrific stuff an opportunity.  You say you've "haven't seen anything" to think he could be a successful starter, but the organization obviously has or he'd be back in the bullpen already.  
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from boboinfla. Show boboinfla's posts

    Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

    In Response to COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP:
    Living in Denver, I had an opportunity to watch Cook pitching for the Rockies, and I thought he was terrific until problems physically.  Cook has an assortment of pitches that starters should have, and more often than not induced hitters to hit ground balls.  Cook also has that "starter frame of mind" when on the mound.  Cook pitched well in spring training, well enough to pitch effectively for 5 innings as he did in spring training. Cook is a starter now, and is needed now so that Bard can become the closer that the Sox need now, not later.  While Bard may not be a Paps, he sure is a lot closer to being a Paps than anyone else the Sox currently have.  As we all know, making Bard the closer also puts Aceves back in a role that he is most effective as a reliever and spot starter.  Cook is a major league starter and does not belong in AAA.    
    Posted by lucbom


    I am from COS originally and now Littleton and also watced the Rockies and Cook break down together. But I agree that Bard at the end and Cook at the 4 hole. The Rockies have made an art form out of breaking down.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from elvis-surfs. Show elvis-surfs's posts

    Re: COOK #5 & BARD CLOSER ASAP

    bard absolutely sux under pressure...any discussion whatsoever of bard even pitching in the major leagues, nevermind as a 'closer,' is an absolute insult to the thought process of any sentient being...seriously...the guy has no balls...sorry, but it is the truth...
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share