SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Discussion of 2014 and 2015 pitching rotations
|
Post by mredsox89 on Dec 15, 2014 2:32:12 GMT -5
The Sox have reduced the downside of their rotation dramatically with these moves, while taking away some of the potential upside. But I prefer the "risk" being in Buchholz as opposed to Webster/Rubby, and having all 3 of those guys in the same rotation probably wouldn't have ended well.
Masterson could end up as the best "5" starter in baseball, and if he melts down, you move him to the pen, eat the $ for an overpaid reliever, and fill in a spot in the rotation with any number of guys. By moving only Webster/Rubby so far, they've kept plenty of depth to fill in at the 4/5 spots or to move for a top flight starter.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Dec 16, 2014 11:31:34 GMT -5
Seems to be a lot of talk about Joe Kelly being moved or moved into the bullpen. This site even has him listed in the bullpen in the 2015 projected rosters. I think that's crazy. He's a starter. He will not be part of the bullpen. And I think if he was to be traded he better bring back a substantial return.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2014 12:05:54 GMT -5
Seems to be a lot of talk about Joe Kelly being moved or moved into the bullpen. This site even has him listed in the bullpen in the 2015 projected rosters. I think that's crazy. He's a starter. He will not be part of the bullpen. And I think if he was to be traded he better bring back a substantial return. It's not crazy at all. Prior to last season he was just as much used in relief as he was a starter and same may have been said for last year had he not been hurt and traded to the Red Sox. He's the top starting candidate to be moved to relief if he's not traded and another pitcher is acquired. He's also most likely to be dealt or at least the most preferential one for most. He's the worst starter they have.
|
|
|
Post by kmann on Dec 16, 2014 12:14:19 GMT -5
Seems to be a lot of talk about Joe Kelly being moved or moved into the bullpen. This site even has him listed in the bullpen in the 2015 projected rosters. I think that's crazy. He's a starter. He will not be part of the bullpen. And I think if he was to be traded he better bring back a substantial return. It's not crazy at all. Prior to last season he was just as much used in relief as he was a starter and same may have been said for last year had he not been hurt and traded to the Red Sox. He's the top starting candidate to be moved to relief if he's not traded and another pitcher is acquired. He's also most likely to be dealt or at least the most preferential one for most. He's the worst starter they have. If you want to get the most value out of him, start him or trade him.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 16, 2014 12:15:10 GMT -5
If you want to get the most value out of him, start him or trade him. That's what I've been saying about Brandon Workman.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 16, 2014 12:20:23 GMT -5
If you want to get the most value out of him, start him or trade him. That's what I've been saying about Brandon Workman. Well it worked with RDLR and Webster. I doubt anyone believes in Workman or Ranaudo as a starter. I'd put them in the pen this year before signing retreads.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
|
Post by nomar on Dec 16, 2014 12:42:08 GMT -5
There's a good chance niether are starters though so I see nothing wrong with trying to see how good they can be in relief. Of one of them turns out to be a good setup guy that's great. 5 cheap years of them could prove to be useful even if they don't end up in the rotation.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Dec 16, 2014 13:36:14 GMT -5
I wouldn't be so quick to write off Ranaudo. He had two very good minor league season the past two years. He did not pitch very well when he was called up to the Sox, but I recall that some thought he might be fatigued because he pitched about 70 percent more innings than in any other season.
He still is ranked #9 on this site's prospect list, which puts him among some select company.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 16, 2014 13:48:42 GMT -5
Seems to be a lot of talk about Joe Kelly being moved or moved into the bullpen. This site even has him listed in the bullpen in the 2015 projected rosters. I think that's crazy. He's a starter. He will not be part of the bullpen. And I think if he was to be traded he better bring back a substantial return. I'm not sure Kelly would get us a big return. Look at what we had to give up to get Miley, two good young pitchers with upside and a low level player. Now Kelly doesn't even come close to having Miley resume. What do you think we could get for him?
I think Workman is a reliever, he looked like he could be a really good impact 7/8 inning guys two years ago. I think Barnes is a reliever long term too. Which would leave us with Ranaudo as our major league ready starter in waiting in the minors. That's why sticking Kelly in the pen to begin the year is a good idea. You know someone will go down and then he can step in. Even though I say put him in the pen, still think he makes 15-20 starts if not more. You need good starter depth if your going into a season with Buchholz and Masterson in your rotation.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Dec 16, 2014 14:36:54 GMT -5
Unless I'm missing something Joe Kelly has started 48 games in the past 3 years. With an era of 3.85 in games started. Is 26yrs old & under control for 4 more years. To me that screams starter and if you want him in a trade he should net a big return.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 16, 2014 14:42:54 GMT -5
If you want to get the most value out of him, start him or trade him. That's what I've been saying about Brandon Workman. Gee I wonder if you guys would ever get around to actually building a winking team. I'm not opposed to trading Kelly just the attitude that if he's not good enough to start for you then deal him. Well deal him for what? What if he's great in the pen? Now we are losing value here by having a great relief pitcher?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 16, 2014 15:00:43 GMT -5
That's what I've been saying about Brandon Workman. Gee I wonder if you guys would ever get around to actually building a winking team. I'm not opposed to trading Kelly just the attitude that if he's not good enough to start for you then deal him. Well deal him for what? What if he's great in the pen? Now we are losing value here by having a great relief pitcher? It all depends on how much other teams value him. If we could trade him and say Craig for a rental, I'd do it.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
|
Post by nomar on Dec 16, 2014 15:27:36 GMT -5
Unless I'm missing something Joe Kelly has started 48 games in the past 3 years. With an era of 3.85 in games started. Is 26yrs old & under control for 4 more years. To me that screams starter and if you want him in a trade he should net a big return. I couldn't care less about his ERA. It's lower than all his other stats suggest it should be. Using an ERA based on pitching in a horrible hitting division and in STL, a much better pitchers' park, is pretty foolish.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 16, 2014 16:28:35 GMT -5
That's what I've been saying about Brandon Workman. Gee I wonder if you guys would ever get around to actually building a winking team. I'm not opposed to trading Kelly just the attitude that if he's not good enough to start for you then deal him. Well deal him for what? What if he's great in the pen? Now we are losing value here by having a great relief pitcher? Yes, because an averagish starting pitcher is worth basically as much as an elite reliever. You can see this on the free agent market-- Andrew Miller got 4/$36m, but meh SPs like Scott Feldman (3/$30m), Jason Vargas (4/$32m), and Ricky Nolasco (4/$49m) get comparable money. If another team is willing to offer what a cost-controlled averagish starting pitcher goes for on the trade market for Kelly (note: that is a significant qualifier; we don't know if such team exists), you're probably better off trading him than relegating him to the bullpen (where, by the way, he's no guarantee to be an elite reliever). (One other caveat: Kelly would still offer 6th starter injury protection in the bullpen, which I haven't taken into account above. But you can price that in, and if you can still get a good enough return, then yeah, you still trade him.)
|
|
|
Post by kmann on Dec 16, 2014 16:30:47 GMT -5
That's what I've been saying about Brandon Workman. Gee I wonder if you guys would ever get around to actually building a winking team. I'm not opposed to trading Kelly just the attitude that if he's not good enough to start for you then deal him. Well deal him for what? What if he's great in the pen? Now we are losing value here by having a great relief pitcher? Again, it's all about value. We just saw Andrew Miller, one of the top lefty bullpen pitchers over the last two years, receive a 4/$36 deal while middle of the rotation pitchers like an Ervin Santana getting 4/$54 deal. Starters have more value than relievers on the market. Joe Kelly has proven he is a legit starting pitcher. I rather trade Joe Kelly and get starter value in return and separately sign or trade a reliever for reliever value. And deal him for what? He can be a major piece in a trade that brings back an ace.
|
|
|
Post by bigpapismangosalsa on Dec 17, 2014 10:31:09 GMT -5
In his career as a starter, Kelly has put up an xFIP of 4.23 and an FIP of 4.19. Matched up to his ERA total of 3.44 and it's fairly easy to see why people don't think he's a lock to be an above average starting pitcher. I don't think he's worthless, I don't want to move him to the pen, and personally I'm glad we kept him over De La Rosa and Webster, but if you want to see what his value is, I think those two guys are pretty good comparisons.
I also think the hand wringing over "blocking" a spot for one of the kids is far removed from reality. Between Buchholz who hasn't been both good and durable since 2010 (and that's even asssuming you'd consider less than 30 starts "durable" which I wouldn't) and Kelly having never pitched more than 124ip in his career, there are going to be PLENTY of starting pitching innings to go around. I think it's most likely we need two of them to be ready, and to replace both of them.
Personally, I would like to see EITHER of these guys replaced for a true number one starter (Hamels, Zimmermann, Cueto), though I don't think that is in the cards - and I believe most everyone would feel the same way. Though to be totally honest, I'd be fine with Buchholz being replaced with another, more dependable starting pitcher even without the upside because of there being considerably less risk.
You can win with a couple of top of the rotation guys, or you can win with a rotation of five "number three" pitchers. I think the reason Buchholz doesn't fit with this latter model is because there is very little chance he's going to be a "number three". He's either going to be a number 1 for two months and get hurt or he's going to be almost unusable for the entire season - at least if we use his career numbers to this point as any indication. I think that variance is way too high when you have another starter in the rotation (Kelly) with no real idea what he's going to be able to give you. Plus, hoenstly, I don't think you can even consider him being a top end of the rotation starter for an entire season as a "reasonable" ceiling any longer. To expect Buchholz to be both good and durable an entire season is basically just wishcasting at this point since it hasn't happened in five seasons, and even then he missed about a month's worth of starts.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jan 7, 2015 17:07:20 GMT -5
Is anyone else worried about how we match up with the Yankees this year? We start 4 RHPs, and they now have the ability to bat left-handed throughout their entire batting order. On top of that Miley wasn't even better against LHB than RHB batters last year, although his career splits are in the direction you'd expect. All in all, it could be a tough year against the Yanks....unless of course we call up Owens, Johnson, and E. Rodriguez solely for the purpose of shutting them down.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
|
Post by nomar on Jan 7, 2015 18:14:13 GMT -5
Their lineup isn't scary so could be a lot worse.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 7, 2015 20:25:39 GMT -5
Is anyone else worried about how we match up with the Yankees this year? We start 4 RHPs, and they now have the ability to bat left-handed throughout their entire batting order. On top of that Miley wasn't even better against LHB than RHB batters last year, although his career splits are in the direction you'd expect. All in all, it could be a tough year against the Yanks....unless of course we call up Owens, Johnson, and E. Rodriguez solely for the purpose of shutting them down. Can't speak for others, but I'm not. First of all, the idea that simply throwing an all left-handed lineup guarantees anything is a stretch. Secondly, what have the Sox done by signing and trading for groundball pitchers, except to guarantee a lot of grounders by those leftie bats to the right side of their infield? Last time I checked, their best infield defenders were on that side. So no, it isn't a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 7, 2015 21:20:02 GMT -5
That's a pretty crappy lineup. The only way they have a shot is if their pitching is exceptional. To that end, they have the pen and starters to be trouble but, what's the over/under on combined innings for Tanaka/Sabathia and Pineda, 300 maybe ?
|
|
|
Post by gatorgreenwell on Jan 8, 2015 11:33:18 GMT -5
CC is a complete wildcard and well past his prime. Tanaka is also a big question mark. They could have gotten lucky with him avoiding surgery, but there is a good chance he's going to need the surgery.
Pineda is the guy that worries me the most. Aside from the pine tar incident, the guy has the stuff to be dominant. He has proven to be a bit injury prone, but he's still relatively young, and could have a very nice season. Eovaldi doesn't scare me. Capuano is obviously not good. Not sure what kind of depth they have, but if CC and Tanaka go down or are ineffective, the Yankees will be in big trouble.
Arod, headley, tex, McCann, ells, beltran, drew, gardner, gregorius is not all that solid. Drew could bounce back some, but how much? ARod probably wont offer much. I'm expecting a bounce back year from Tex as well. McCann and Ells will be fine. Beltran will be fine when he plays but prob cant handle RF every day anymore. Gardner is very solid.
The sox lineup dominates their lineup. Our biggest question is the pitching. Can our group of #3 starters pitch well enough to keep us in game our offense can win?
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jan 8, 2015 12:30:44 GMT -5
Let's try to look at it this way, which teams out there clearly have a better rotation top to bottom than the Red Sox? Dodgers and Nationals form the top tier in the league in my eyes. Mariners are very high potential depending on what Paxton and Walker do. I'd probably say the same about Toronto and Cleveland with their young/unproven pitchers. Cardinals are solid, but still have questions and not their typical pitching depth they are use too (Wacha's injury, Martinez as a starter). Oakland is deep and Billy is great at finding starters, and Tampa's rotation could be hit or miss. That's about as far as I'd take it, and of those teams I'd say 4-5 are clearly better. I mean White Sox and Tigers will be handing the ball to Simon, Greane, Noesi, and Danks 40% of the time.
I think the focus is on our starting rotation because that is the easiest place to make a material addition. There is no position player in free agency or the trade market we could add who would be both a clear upgrade and worth the acquisition cost. But, Scherzer, Lester, Cueto, Zimmerman, etc, would be a material upgrade over Kelly. That statement doesn't mean Kelly is not valuable or the starting rotation is bad, it just adds options. I'm fine with the rotation as is, I do acknowledge it is riskier than we would like it to be, but I don't think it makes Scherzer worth 180M or Hamels worth Swihart and Betts.
|
|
|
Post by knuckledown on Jan 15, 2015 14:42:06 GMT -5
It would seems with the softening market for Shields we may actually get a rotation upgrade over Kelly. And I don't think that would be bad for the next two years. After that, who knows.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 15, 2015 15:46:17 GMT -5
I'm not sure that the Shields market is softening. Sure, teams aren't beating down the door to give him $110m+, but by all accounts, a ton of teams are interested in him as a stable veteran sort (for instance, the two latest teams connected to Shields are the Marlins and the Diamondbacks, who you might not expect to be buyers).
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Jan 15, 2015 15:51:59 GMT -5
|
|
|